Brock v. Watts Realty Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 February 1991
• Citation: 582 So.2d 438
• Parties: Savana BROCK, as administratrix of the Estate of Beverly Ann Jackson, deceased v. WATTS REALTY COMPANY, INC., and James C. Levie. 89-1362.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 438

582 So.2d 438

43 A.L.R.5th 839

Savana BROCK, as administratrix of the Estate of Beverly Ann Jackson, deceased v. WATTS REALTY COMPANY, INC., and James C. Levie.

89-1362.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 22, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 10, 1991.

Stuart F. Vargo of Heninger, Burge & Vargo, Birmingham, for Savana Brock.

De Martenson and William G. Gantt of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for appellee Watts Realty Co., Inc.

Thomas Coleman, Jr. of Spain, Gillon, Grooms, Blan & Nettles, Birmingham, for appellee James C. Levie.

STEAGALL, Justice.

Savana Brock, as administratrix of the estate of Beverly Ann Jackson, appeals from the summary judgments for defendants Watts Realty Company, Inc., and James C. Levie on her suit against them alleging negligence. The basis of Brock's complaint was that Levie and Watts Realty, as owner and lessor, respectively, of an apartment rented to Jackson, failed to maintain the locks on Jackson's back door in a safe condition as required by two Birmingham Housing Code ordinances, which read:

"Sec. 7-1-93 Windows, exterior doors, etc.

"Every window, exterior door and basement hatchway shall be reasonably weathertight, watertight and rodentproof and shall be kept in sound working condition and good repair. Locks shall be provided on all exterior doors and all exterior openable windows."

(Emphasis added.)

"Sec. 7-1-97 Construction, maintenance, etc., generally, of facilities, etc.

"Every facility, piece of equipment or utility which is required under this article shall be so constructed or installed that it will function safely and effectively and shall be maintained in satisfactory working condition."

(Emphasis added.)

Beverly Jackson and Beverly Silliman had been romantically involved with the same man, Curtis Hawkins, and, as a result, had had confrontations and had exchanged threats. On October 16, 1985, about 9:00 a.m., Jackson called the Birmingham police and reported that a prowler was at the "back part" of her apartment. Sergeant Roger Harrison arrived at her apartment about 9:07 a.m.; he did not see anyone near the front door, which, he stated in his affidavit, was locked. Immediately after Sergeant Harrison knocked on the front door, Silliman exited through the rear door of the apartment. When the officers entered the apartment, they found Jackson lying on the floor, stabbed to death. Silliman pleaded guilty to murder and is currently serving her sentence.

Brock's argument on appeal is a novel one in that she advocates holding Levie and Watts Realty statutorily liable for the death of her daughter rather than holding them liable under the common law. She alleged in her complaint against them that the locks on Jackson's back door were faulty, that Jackson had submitted two service requests to Watts Realty asking it to repair the locks on her back door, that Watts Realty failed to repair the locks or to acknowledge Jackson's requests in any way, and that, as a result of the faulty locks, Jackson's killer entered her apartment through the back door. ¹

The general rule in Alabama is that landlords and businesses are not liable for the criminal acts of third persons unless such acts were reasonably foreseeable. Moye v. A.G. Gaston Motels, Inc., 499 So.2d 1368 (Ala.1986); Ortell v. Spencer Companies, 477 So.2d 299 (Ala.1985); and Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272 (Ala.1984). The basis for this rule has been that landlords and businesses should not be held liable for acts that could not have been anticipated.

Brock argues that statutes and ordinances such as the two Birmingham ordinances here are enacted only to protect a class of people from a foreseeable harm, i.e., crime; otherwise, she argues, such statutes and ordinances would be unnecessary. Looking at the statute pursuant to which the ordinances at issue here were enacted, Ala.Code 1975, § 11-53-1, we agree. That statute reads, in pertinent part:

"Legislative declarations and findings of fact.

"It is hereby declared that insanitary and unsafe buildings, dwellings and structures of all types and descriptions used for human habitation exist in the incorporated municipalities of this state and that such insanitary and unsafe conditions arise from obsolescence, poor repair, maintenance and the overcrowding and use of such buildings, dwellings and structures used for human habitation and occupancy; ... and, that such conditions cause an increase in and spread of disease and crime and are damaging and injurious to the inhabitants and general public of such incorporated municipalities."

(Emphasis added.) It is, thus, clear that the legislature attempted to alleviate the crime problem in such residential areas as Jackson's and in the landlord/tenant context by authorizing incorporated municipalities to enact and enforce housing codes for the protection of occupants of residential dwellings such as Jackson.

Although the issue before us is one of first impression, Florida recently held landlords to a statutory duty to protect their tenants from the criminal acts of third persons in Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210 (Fla.Dist.Ct.1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla.1986). In that case, a female tenant was sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant in her apartment building, which had a front door with a faulty lock and a rear door with no lock. The plaintiff, as here, had previously notified the landlord of the inadequate security and had expressed concerns for her safety. A Florida statute in effect at the time the lease was signed, § 83.51, Florida Statutes (1981), required a landlord to provide leased premises "with locks and keys" in the leased areas and the common areas, and to maintain the common areas of the premises in a "safe condition."

Recognizing the general rule in Florida regarding the nonliability of landlords in such contexts, the court in Paterson v. Deeb nonetheless held that § 83.51 created a duty on the part of the landlord to provide protection from criminal attacks by third parties, regardless of an absence of prior...